Cascade Apartments: 

Deep Energy Multifamily 

Retrofit

A. Gordon, L. Mattheis, R. Kunkle, L. Howard, 

and M. Lubliner 

Washington State University Energy Program 

BA-PIRC

February 2014 
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, subcontractors, or affiliated partners makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes 

any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, 

apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned 

rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Cascade Apartments: Deep Energy Multifamily Retrofit

Prepared for:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

15013 Denver West Parkway 

Golden, CO 80401 

NREL Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 

Prepared by:

A. Gordon, L. Mattheis, R. Kunkle, L. Howard, and M. Lubliner

Washington State University Energy Program 

for 

BA-PIRC

1967 Clearlake Road 

Cocoa, FL 32922 

NREL Technical Monitor: Stacey Rothgeb 

Prepared under Subcontract No. KNDJ-0-40339-03 

February 2014 
iv

[This page left blank]
v 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ v

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................. vii

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... ix

1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................. 1

2 Modeling Methods ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 TREAT Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Utility Billing Analysis .................................................................................................................... 3

3 Data Collection Methods...................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Energy Audits .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.2 Data Logging ................................................................................................................................... 5

4 Description of Retrofit Package.......................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Attic ................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.2 Walls ................................................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Crawlspace and Cantilevered Floors ............................................................................................... 9

4.4 Ventilation ..................................................................................................................................... 10

4.5 Windows ........................................................................................................................................ 11

4.6 Doors .............................................................................................................................................. 11

5 Savings-to-Investment Ratio Analysis ............................................................................................. 12

6 Results................................................................................................................................................. 13

6.1 Utility Billing Regression Analysis ............................................................................................... 13

6.2 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Results ............................................................................ 14

7 Ventilation System Discussion ......................................................................................................... 16

8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 18

9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 20

9.1 Ventilation ..................................................................................................................................... 20

9.2 Policy ............................................................................................................................................. 20

9.3 Future Research ............................................................................................................................. 20

Appendix A: Relative Humidity Monitoring Results.............................................................................. 22

Appendix B: Energy Audit Detail............................................................................................................. 24

Appendix C: Regression Analysis .......................................................................................................... 32
vi 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cascade Apartments .................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2. Attic floor during and after retrofit............................................................................................ 7

Figure 3. Non-IC rated light fixture (left); IC rated Marley heat lamp (right).............................................. 8

Figure 4. Foil-faced batt fiberglass wall insulation ................................................................................. 8

Figure 5. Installation of dense-pack cellulose wall insulation ............................................................... 9

Figure 6. Crawlspace insulation pre-retrofit (left) and post-retrofit (right), with air sealing detail... 10

Figure 7. Exhaust/intake grille of ERV (left); a Panasonic representative inspects the ERV (right) 10

Figure 8. Monthly electricity use for all units in Cascade..................................................................... 13

Figure 9. Temperature stem and leaf plot for 12 Cascade units by month, post-retrofit .................. 16

Figure 10. RH stem and leaf plot for 12 Cascade units by month, post-retrofit................................. 17

Figure 11. RH and temperature for monitored units in Cascade, February 2013............................... 23

Figure 12. Air infiltration around a door ................................................................................................. 24

Figure 13. Air infiltration surrounding an electrical outlet (left); thermal bridging and air bypasses 

in walls and ceiling (right) ................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 14. Setup for multiunit blower door testing ............................................................................... 25

Figure 15. Preparing TECHLOG2............................................................................................................. 26

Figure 16. Building V, pre-retrofit testing, test pressures .................................................................... 28

Figure 17. Building V, pre-retrofit testing, flow rates and building pressures ................................... 29

Figure 18. Building V, post-retrofit testing, test pressures .................................................................. 30

Figure 19. Building V, post-retrofit testing, flow rates and building pressures ................................. 31

Figure 20. Regression analysis for Cascade two-bedroom units........................................................ 32

Figure 21. Regression analysis for Cascade three-bedroom units ..................................................... 33

Unless otherwise noted, all figures were created by BA-PIRC.

List of Tables

Table 1. Whole-Building “Guarded” Blower Door Testing Results ....................................................... 4

Table 2. Individual Unit “Solo” Blower Door Testing Results ................................................................ 4

Table 3. Estimated Energy Retrofit Measures Based on KCHA Costs per Measure............................ 6

Table 4. SIR Results.................................................................................................................................. 12

Table 5. Weather Normalized Electricity Use for the Different Regression Models by Fourplex ..... 14

Table 6. Comparison of TREAT Predicted Savings With Utility Data Regression Analysis for ThreeBedroom Fourplex.............................................................................................................................. 15

Table 7. Comparison of Whole-Building Air Testing Results and Sum of Individual Testing Results26

 

Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by BA-PIRC.
vii 

Definitions

ACHn Air changes per hour (natural)

BA Building America

CFM Cubic feet per minute

DHW Domestic hot water

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

ERV Energy recovery ventilator

gpm Gallons per minute

h Hour

IAQ Indoor air quality

IC Insulated Contact

KCHA King County Housing Authority 

kWh Kilowatt-hour

PSE Puget Sound Energy

RH Relative humidity

SHGC Solar heat gain coefficient

SIR Savings-to-investment ratio

TMY3 Typical Meteorological Year 3

TREAT Targeted Retrofit Energy Analysis Tool
viii

Acknowledgments

This work is sponsored in large part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Building 

Technology’s Building America (BA) Industrialized Housing Program under cooperative 

agreement DE-FC36-99GO10478. The authors thank the following persons and organizations for 

their contributions to this project and report: Dan Auer and Zach Klegg, King County Housing 

Authority (KCHA), Michael Blasnik, Blasnik and Associates; Luke Howard, Washington State 

University Energy Program; Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Conservation Program staff; Eric 

Martin, DOE Building America Program; Colin Olson, The Energy Conservatory; Don Stevens, 

Panasonic USA; Michael Stuart, Fluke Thermography; and Anthony Cox and Chase Counts, 

Community Housing Partners. 
ix

Executive Summary

In 2009-10, KCHA implemented energy retrofit improvements in the Cascade multifamily 

community, located in Kent, Washington (marine climate.) The improvements, implemented in 

108 (27 fourplexes) multifamily units included:

• Innovative dense packing insulation to the existing R-7 wall insulation for a combined 

value of R-14 (nominal). Also added dense pack insulation to R-4 rim joist areas for a 

combined value of R-14. 

• Air sealing attics, and then adding 4 in. of cellulose to the existing insulation for a 

combined value of R-38. 

• Removal and replacement of older double pane aluminum windows (U = 0.75, 

solar heat gain coefficient = 0.68) with new ENERGY STAR® vinyl windows (U = 0.30, 

solar heat gain coefficient = 0.30). 

• Aggressive air sealing in conjunction with replacement of insulation and window 

replacement, resulting in a reduction in air leakage from 5.85 ACH50 to 3.38 ACH50. 

• Removal of failing R-19 insulation in the crawlspace air sealing and reinsulating to R-30. 

• Replacement of older wood doors (U = 0.56) with insulated, code-compliant doors 

(U = 0.20). 

• Converted existing KCHA-controlled whole-house exhaust bathroom fan running 8 h/day 

to occupant-controlled intermittent bath ventilation. 

• Installed a KCHA-controlled continuously operated small single supply/exhaust energy 

recovery ventilator (ERV) in main living area, as the new whole-house ventilation 

system. 

• As needed, additional retrofit of showerheads, aerators and compact fluorescent lamps

(screw-in), provided at no cost to KCHA by the Washington Conservation Corps. 

This research effort involved significant coordination from stakeholders KCHA, Washington 

State Department of Commerce, utility PSE, and Cascade tenants. Funding from KCHA’s capital 

improvement budget combined with state low-income weatherization funds and utility incentives 

to leverage the retrofit efforts; these additional resources improved the cost effectiveness of 

KCHA’s investment. 

Washington State University worked with KCHA to assist in:

• Determining retrofit measure options with the Targeted Retrofit Analysis Tool (TREAT) 

• Installing and quality assurance inspections of retrofit measures

• Utility billing analysis comparing 2 years of pre-retrofit with 1 year of post-retrofit data

• Field testing employing multiunit blower door testing and thermal imaging 

• Monitoring temperature and relative humidity in a sample of units identified by KCHA 

with pre-retrofit moisture issues. 
x 

This report focuses on the following three primary BA research questions: 

1. What are the modeled energy savings using DOE low-income weatherization approved 

TREAT software? 

 TREAT estimated annual savings were 3,730 kWh per apartment, or $392 ($23/month) at 

the utility rate of $0.105. Whole-building (three-bedroom fourplex) site energy savings 

were 14,918 kWh/year, 30% compared to pre-retrofit (Table 5). Total estimated source 

energy savings are 50,198 kWh/year per building based on national source energy 

factors. While the two-bedroom units were not modeled, if one assumes similar savings 

for those units (an assumption borne out in the utility regression analysis), total modeled 

site savings for the 100 units in the Cascade community are 372,950 kWh/year; total 

estimated source energy savings are 1,254,976 kWh/year.

2. How did the modeled energy savings compare with measured energy savings from 

aggregate utility billing analysis?

The utility billing analysis suggest total annual savings of 10,600 kWh per fourplex for 

the three-bedroom units, and 10,776 kWh per fourplex for the two-bedroom units, for an 

average of 10,691 kWh/year, a 22% reduction. While the overall savings is 71% of the 

predicted TREAT savings, the utility billing analysis suggests significant savings from 

the retrofit measures, with the majority of the savings (85%) coming from heating energy 

use.

3. What is the Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) of the retrofit package after considering 

utility window incentives and KCHA capital improvement funding? 

 Energy retrofit measure cost data were collected to determine the cost effectiveness of 

individual measures and the retrofit packages as a whole for the three-bedroom fourplex 

prototype. TREAT analysis indicated that the SIR varied considerably depending on 

whether or not utility incentives and capital improvement funds were leveraged. The SIR 

improves considerably if utility incentives and capital improvement funds associated with 

window and door replacements and Americorp contributions are not considered in the 

calculation. 

The full estimated cost of the energy saving retrofits was $26,234 per fourplex, and 

$655,850 for the entire community (does not include measures installed by the 

Conservation Corps). Of that figure (entire community), PSE contributed $67,321 for 

windows, and KCHA contributed $202,678 from its Capital Improvement Fund ($34,375 

for doors, $168,303 for windows). The incremental costs associated with the DOE lowincome weatherization funds were assumed to be $385,850 for the whole community, or 

$15,434 per fourplex. 

 By combining capital improvement funds and utility incentives, KCHA was able to 

utilize weatherization funds to make the needed improvements, while achieving an SIR 

of greater than 1. Without PSE window incentives, the SIR was 1.02. With the PSE 

window incentive, the SIR increased to 1.17. If the KCHA window and door costs are 
xi

removed from the calculation (arguably justified because window retrofit was 

implemented due to the failure of the existing windows) the SIR increases to 1.67—this 

is in effect the SIR for all DOE weatherization funded measures.

Additional benefits to the KCHA and the Cascade Apartments occupants include the use 

of capital improvement funds in order to extend the useful life of the buildings, avoid the 

cost of new construction, and reduce the impact on occupants (no occupants were 

displaced during the retrofits). Based on KCHA staff and occupant feedback before and 

after the retrofits, overall indoor air quality improved with the installation of the ERVs

and education on their use. Each unit realized approximately $23 in monthly utility 

savings; these savings will continue throughout the life of the units. 

Determination of SIRs for individual retrofit measures was not possible because there is 

no established methodology for identifying the contribution to reduced air leakage from 

dense wall pack insulation, window retrofits, or door retrofits (distinct from savings 

associated with reduction in conductive heat loss). Assigning air leakage reductions to 

insulation, window retrofits, and door retrofits in multifamily apartments is a key area for 

future work, in order to better assess the SIR of the individual measures. 
1 

1 Introduction and Background

Cascade is a low-rise multifamily community located in the marine climate of Washington State, 

and owned and operated by Building America (BA) partner the King County Housing Authority 

(KCHA). Built in the 1960s, the community is a complex of 25 two-story apartment buildings 

and two one-story apartment buildings. Each building has four apartments for a total of 108 

units. The buildings are wood framed with pitched roofs and vented crawlspaces. The units are 

all electrically heated with zonal baseboard heat controlled by wall-mounted thermostats, and all 

units have 50-gal electric water heaters (note—these were not changed during the retrofits). 

None of the units have air conditioning. 

Cascade is an ethnically diverse community, with members originating from Russia, Sudan, 

Ethiopia, and various cultures throughout the world. This leads to challenges in conveying 

instructions on operating the equipment as intended and the ability of occupants to accurately 

convey complaints or reservations concerning building operations. The energy retrofits sought to 

address several deficiencies including excessively high utility bills and moisture levels, 

conditions that directly impacted the financial and physical health of the community members. 

Figure 1. Cascade Apartments
2 

2 Modeling Methods

2.1 TREAT Analysis

In the design phase, the project collected energy efficiency measure cost information, in order to 

assess energy savings using an energy simulation software called TREAT (TREAT is an 

acronym for Targeted Retrofit Energy Analysis Tool) (Performance Systems Development 

Consulting, 2012). 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires low-income weatherization providers to conduct 

computerized energy audits with approved software that incorporates interactive savings with a 

body of measures, and (for multifamily projects) allows for a model true-up with billing history.

TREAT is utilized by the low-income weatherization providers on multifamily projects as 

required by Washington State Department of Commerce, to access state funding for low-income 

weatherization projects (Washington State Department of Commerce, 2009). 

TREAT was selected as the research analysis tool because at the time the current version of the 

Building Energy Optimization Program could not be used to assess complex multifamily 

structures such as Cascade (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012), (Kruis, Christensen, 

& Wilson, 2011). TREAT also provides the opportunity to “true-up” the predicted energy use 

from the model to actual energy use. This is accomplished by adjusting assumptions for certain 

model inputs until predicted and actual energy use match. No true-up of the space heating use 

was required, since it was within 10% of utility data based on TREAT true-up procedures. The 

TREAT file pre-retrofit energy use was “trued up,” on the base load by adjusting the domestic 

hot water (DHW) use assumption from 17 gal/day/person to 15 gal/day/person. Researchers 

adjusted the TREAT pre-retrofit and post-retrofit models to better reflect findings from field 

inspections; blower door tests heating, ventilation, and air conditioning audits; and monitored 

temperature data. 

Based on monitored temperatures on a subsample of homes (see Section 3.2 and Appendix A), 

the thermostat setting was assumed to be 68°F with 8-hour setback. For the TREAT analysis, 

researchers determined reasonable air leakage rates to be 0.29 ACHn pre-retrofit and 0.17 ACHn

post-retrofit, based on field testing (see Section 3.1). This testing at Cascade is part of an 

ongoing BA research effort into determining envelope leakage rates in attached dwellings

employing multiple blower doors (Griffiths, 2012), (Faakye, Arena, & Griffiths, 2013). 
3 

2.2 Utility Billing Analysis

Electric utility bills were obtained from Puget Sound Energy (PSE) through KCHA. Two sets of 

data were obtained for all the two-bedroom units (combined 52 units in 13 fourplexes) and all the 

three-bedroom units (48 units in 12 fourplexes) for January 2007 to July 2012. For the utility bill 

analysis, researchers focused on the 2 years prior to the start of the energy efficiency retrofits 

(December 2008 to November 2010) and the 11 months after the retrofit (September 2011 to 

July 2012).1

To account for the influence of weather on heating electricity use, electricity use was normalized 

to typical temperature conditions (Typical Meteorological Year 3 [TMY3]). Regression models 

of electricity use and degree days were developed for the pre- and post-retrofit periods for the 

two- and three-bedroom units. The degree day temperature base was varied for each of the four 

cases to obtain the best model.2

 

1 The retrofits were completed in September 2011. Since the retrofits were done one building at a time, most of the 

buildings had been retrofitted by September 2011, so we are including it in the post period to increase the number of 

post-period months. Researchers do not think this has a significant impact on the results. If anything it would tend to 

slightly reduce estimated savings.

2 Researchers used a spreadsheet regression analysis tool developed by Michael Blasnik. It uses a Bayesian approach 

to select the best balance point based on R-squared and a prior estimate of balance point. The tool uses daily average 

temperature data (in this case from Sea-Tac Airport) to estimate degree days at different base temperatures. 
4 

3 Data Collection Methods

3.1 Energy Audits

Energy retrofit measures were selected after conducting energy audits on the units at Cascade 

Apartments. These audits, conducted by KCHA staff, included multipoint blower door tests, 

assessing existing insulation, and observing moisture-related issues present in the units. These 

audits also included the use of BA partners’ tools such as the Fluke Ti32 Thermal Imaging 

equipment and software and The Energy Conservatory blower doors and TECHLOG2 software. 

These audits are described in detail in Appendix B. 

The results of the “guarded” multiunit blower door test are displayed in Table 1 for one 

representative fourplex, where all blower doors are running at the same time—this test measures 

only the leakage to the exterior for each unit. Table 2 shows results for “solo” (unguarded) 

blower door tests conducted for each individual unit (all units are end units, without other doors 

operating—this test measures both the leakage to the exterior and leakage between units).

TECHLOG2 files are provided in Appendix B for the example fourplex in Tables 1 and 2. 

Further BA investigations with larger datasets are underway to evaluate the impact of using 

guarded or solo blower door tests for savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) analysis, and the larger 

implications for energy and indoor air quality (IAQ) (Griffiths, 2012), (Faakye, Arena, & 

Griffiths, 2013).) 

Table 1. Whole-Building “Guarded” Blower Door Testing Results

Pre Post Reduced

CFM50 3,339 1,926 1,413 

ACH50 5.85 3.38 2.47 

ACHn 0.29 0.17 0.12 

Table 2. Individual Unit “Solo” Blower Door Testing Results

Unit

CFM50 ACH50 ACHn

3

Pre Post Reduced Pre Post Reduced Pre Post Reduced

101 929 619 310 6.38 4.25 2.13 0.30 0.20 0.10

102 904 721 184 6.20 4.95 1.26 0.30 0.24 0.06

103 932 575 357 6.40 3.95 2.45 0.30 0.19 0.12

104 896 587 309 6.15 4.03 2.12 0.29 0.19 0.10

Sum 3,661 2,502 1,160 6.42 4.38 2.03 0.31 0.21 0.10

 

3 Researchers determined ACHn by multiplying the CFM50 by 60, then dividing that result by the product of the 

volume and an “n-factor.” The n-factor used here was 21 (two-story, zone 3, shielded), using original methodology 

from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory based off the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory mode, a typical 

approach used by low-income weatherization programs (RES_Energy_V5).
5 

The reduction in leakage for the “guarded” test was 0.12 ACHn; for the “solo” test, the reduction 

was 0.10. For the purposes of this analysis, the end results of “guarded” versus “solo” testing are 

similar enough that the use of either in the TREAT analysis is expected to produce similar SIR 

for Cascade. The impact of air leakage test methodologies may have a more significant impact 

on other projects, and requires additional research.

3.2 Data Logging

Onset HOBO data loggers were installed in 12 units throughout the Cascade community. The 

units were selected primarily on the basis of moisture complaints. The data loggers recorded 

temperature and relative humidity (RH) levels at hourly intervals during the post-retrofit period

beginning on February 1, 2012 through September 13, 2012. Analysis of the data recorded by the 

data loggers shows the interior temperature for the most part fluctuating in response to the 

outside temperature. The temperature information collected from the data loggers was used to

help inform researchers about TREAT thermostat set point adjustments. The RH data provide 

some indication of the ability of the energy recovery ventilators (ERVs) to control humidity and 

provide insight into potential impacts of occupant lifestyle on RH levels (see Section 7 and 

Figure 9.) 
6 

4 Description of Retrofit Package

Working with local contractors, KCHA proposed nine retrofit measures designed to reduce 

energy consumption, increase comfort, improve IAQ and sound attenuation, increase building 

durability, and contribute toward community longevity. 

Table 3 lists the retrofit measures proposed and installed in the Cascade community, the source 

of funding for the improvement measure, and the cost associated with that improvement. Note 

that the air sealing improvements were associated with the attic wall and rim joist insulation 

improvements, and the costs for air sealing are included with those measures.

Table 3. Estimated Energy Retrofit Measures Based on KCHA Costs per Measure

Measure Funding Pre-Retrofit PostRetrofit

Square Feet

per 

Component

Cost per 

Fourplex

Air Seal and 

Insulate Attic

DOE 

Weatherization

R-38 

(nominal) 

R-38 

(added 4 

in.) 

4,395 ft2 $2,901 

$0.66/ft2

Dense Pack Walls DOE 

Weatherization

R-7 (initial 

instal.) R-14 4,360 ft2 $6,192 $1.42/ ft2

Dense Pack Rim 

Joist (Cantilever) 

DOE 

Weatherization R-4 (uninsul.) R-14 $290 $2.10/ft2

Install ENERGYSTAR® Windows

KCHA

PSE

Double pane 

aluminum, no 

thermal break 

U-0.754

Vinyl low-e 

+ argon U0.30 

$9,4255

($21/ft2

without PSE 

incentive)

Reinsulate Floor DOE 

Weatherization

R-19 

(nominal—

poor 

condition)

R-30 $3,456 

$0.79/ft2

ERV (1 per 

Apartment) 

DOE 

Weatherization

8 h @60 

CFM; 0% 

efficiency

24 h @40 

CFM (23 

W); 66% 

efficiency

NA $2,5956

$649/unit 

Doors (5 Total) KCHA U-0.56 U-0.20 $275/door 

 

4 Default U-value from 2012 IECC/Washington State Energy Code for a double-pane aluminum frame window with 

greater than 1⁄2-in. gap, low-e and argon fill (Washington State Building Code Council, 2012). 5 Funding for the window replacement came from PSE ($6/ft2

). 6 Does not include cost of asbestos removal as part of ERV installation. 
7 

Measure Funding Pre-Retrofit PostRetrofit

Square Feet

per 

Component

Cost per 

Fourplex

DHW 100% Low 

Flow Sink 

Faucets/Aerators 

and Shower 

Heads

Conservation 

Corps As found 

100%—1.5-

gpm shower 

heads and 

0.5-gpm

sink 

aerators_ 

$07

Lighting Conservation 

Corps As found 

Compact 

fluorescent 

lamps

$07 

Total Cost $26,234

($6,558/unit)

Source: KCHA

4.1 Attic 

The existing Rockwool insulation was moved aside to identify opportunities to air seal and 

address any structural issues existing in the attic (see Figure 2). Once air sealing was complete, 

the displaced Rockwool was returned to its original place and topped off with 4 in. of blown-in 

cellulose for an overall rating of R-38. 

During the process, it was discovered that boxes had been built around existing non-insulated 

contact (IC) light fixtures, pictured in Figure 3. These areas had no air sealing. The non-IC rated 

heat lamps were removed and replaced with airtight, IC rated Marley heat lamps. 

Figure 2. Attic floor during and after retrofit

 

7 Conservation Corps provided DHW fixtures and lighting at no cost to KCHA.
8 

Figure 3. Non-IC rated light fixture (left); IC rated Marley heat lamp (right)

4.2 Walls

The original insulation installed in the wall cavities was a nominally rated R-7 foil-faced batt 

fiberglass batts (in a 2 × 4 wall), as shown in Figure 4. The existing insulation degraded over 

time, leaving many avenues for convective heat loss and a reduced capacity to reduce heat loss 

via conduction. 

Figure 4. Foil-faced batt fiberglass wall insulation
9 

KCHA chose to dense-pack the wall cavities with cellulose insulation, which reduces both 

convective and conductive heat loss, installed at a density of 3.5 lb/ft3

. The practice of densepacking multifamily buildings is beginning to become more common for KCHA multifamily 

projects such as Newporter Apartments (Lubliner, et al., 2013). 

Contractors working at Cascade initially did not believe dense-packing was a viable option. 

KCHA staff selected a contractor (Arrow Insulation) experienced in dense-packing and blower 

door testing multiunit buildings. Arrow Insulation is also working with PSE on a large-scale 

multifamily research project involving the installation of dense-pack insulation. These 

installations will be evaluated for their air-sealing benefit using “guarded” blower door tests 

(Puget Sound Energy, 2013). The installation of the dense-pack is shown in Figure 5. 

Figure 5. Installation of dense-pack cellulose wall insulation

Other retrofit projects implemented by KCHA, including Newporter Apartments, included the 

installation of rigid foam board beneath the replacement siding, providing additional insulation 

and protection from water intrusion. In the case of Cascade, a combination of funding, logistics, 

and timing proved too large an obstacle to surmount, leaving the Cascade buildings without foam 

board installed beneath the exterior siding. 

4.3 Crawlspace and Cantilevered Floors

The existing insulation found in the crawlspace and floor cantilever areas was found sagging 

against the securing cord in places, with numerous voids in the cavity. In addition, the insulation 

was host for organic growth. The existing R-19 insulation was removed and replaced with new 

R-30 insulation. Removal of the old insulation facilitated locating and sealing numerous air leaks

in the floor cavity. 
10 

Figure 6. Crawlspace insulation pre-retrofit (left) and post-retrofit (right), with air sealing detail

4.4 Ventilation 

Prior to the retrofit, a Panasonic Whispergreen exhaust fan acted as the whole-house ventilation 

system for each unit. This fan was located in the second-floor bathroom and hardwired to run 8 

h/day at an average (measured) flow rate of 62 CFM (flows ranged from 13 to 82 CFM). 

Controls for the fans were covered with a blank faceplate to prevent tampering by the occupants. 

As part of the retrofit, these fans were converted to occupant-controlled spot ventilation fans, 

utilized to remove moisture and other pollutants associated with the upstairs bathroom. 

During the retrofit, KCHA installed Panasonic Whisper Comfort ERVs in the main living area of 

each unit, open to the kitchen (see Figure 7). These ERVs are set by the housing authority to 

operate as a continuously operating whole-house ventilation system with an energy recovery rate 

of 66%. The nonvented range hood was not replaced in the retrofit due to cost and logistic 

constraints. Locating the ERV in main living area improves IAQ for the occupants by diluting 

particulates associated with cooking. These particulates are known to have health impacts.

Figure 7. Exhaust/intake grille of ERV (left); a Panasonic representative inspects the ERV (right)

Intake

Exhaust
11 

4.5 Windows

Double-pane, non-thermally broken aluminum frame windows (installed in the mid 1980s) were 

removed from the buildings in the Cascade community and replaced with ENERGY STARcertified, vinyl-framed, double-pane, argon-filled windows, with a U-0.30 rating and solar heat 

gain coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30. While these windows provided gains in energy efficiency, they 

also addressed another IAQ issue by eliminating a thermal bridge in the aluminum frame of the 

old windows. During cold weather the aluminum frame became colder than the inside air, 

contributing to condensation on the surface and leading to some mold growth. Because the vinyl 

frames reduce thermal bridging, window condensation and mold growth are greatly reduced 

according to KCHA. 

The windows installed during this retrofit include trickle vents, due to code requirements (the 

ERV was not centrally ducted); observations from KCHA suggests that residents are not using 

them. This is not uncommon in Washington State, regardless of the necessity of inlet vents 

(Gordon, Lubliner, Michael, Howard, & Kunkle, 2013). 

As noted in Table 3, the windows were paid for as part of KCHA’s capital improvement budget 

as well as utility incentives.

4.6 Doors

Cascade received new exterior doors as part of the retrofit. The existing doors, paper honeycomb 

core without a thermal break, were replaced by new doors with a solid urethane foam core and 

thermal break. The insulation level of the existing doors were assumed to be roughly R-1.8; the 

new doors were rated at R-5. Similar to the windows, the door purchase was funded by the 

capital improvement budget. 
12 

5 Savings-to-Investment Ratio Analysis

Cost data were collected from the contractors performing the retrofit work at Cascade. These 

data were then integrated into an SIR calculation, using TREAT. In TREAT, SIRs of greater than 

1 are indicative of economically cost-effective weatherization measures. In this model, SIR 

calculation assumptions were based on state Department of Commerce requirements for 

calculating SIRs (Washington State Department of Commerce, 2009). Basic assumptions for this 

calculation include an inflation rate of 3%, a loan interest rate of 8%, a loan term of 30 years, and 

a bank rate of 6%. 

To obtain DOE/Department of Commerce low-income funding for weatherization measures, 

KCHA was required to show an SIR of greater than 1 for the entire package. KCHA’s SIR 

analysis looks at SIR based only on the amount of DOE funding contributed to the project. It 

does not account for all building renovation costs, as some renovations were not made for energy 

savings or funded through weatherization grants or incentives. Table 3, above, provides the 

source of funding for all retrofit measures and their associated costs. 

TREAT performs two energy usage estimations, modeled analysis and billing analysis. Modeled 

analysis produces an estimated energy usage figure based solely on building and environmental 

input (location, appliances, dimensions, contruction material, air leakage, etc.). Billing analysis 

uses the same inputs but adjusts the space heating and/or baseload to reflect actual usage as 

shown through utility billing data, which is uploaded into TREAT. This process is called truing 

up. These numbers are then normalized to TMY3 data. 

Building America researchers conducted three distinct sets of TREAT runs for SIR calculations. 

In all cases, the TREAT runs assume the energy savings for the entire retrofit. The three distinct 

cost scenarios were as follows:

1. Only the costs associated with the DOE-funded measures—wall, floor, and attic 

insulation, and the ERV. 

2. All the above costs, plus the window and door replacement costs.

3. All the above costs, less the incentives from PSE. 

From the housing authority perspective, it is not appropriate to include the leveraged KCHA and 

utility incentives in the SIR analysis. Following this assumption, the researchers assume that the 

energy cost of these measures is zero. 

The SIR results are shown in Table 4. 

Table 4. SIR Results

SIR Without PSE Incentives 1.02

SIR With PSE Window Incentive 1.17

SIR With No Window and Door Costs 1.67
13 

6 Results

6.1 Utility Billing Regression Analysis

Figure 8 shows the total monthly electricity use for all units in Cascade.

Figure 8. Monthly electricity use for all units in Cascade

There is approximately a 20% decline in the utility bills for the year following the retrofit.8 The 

decline for the two-bedroom units is slightly more than for the three-bedroom units (22% versus 

19%) This result is due to the much higher baseload in the three-bedroom units, which offsets 

some of the heating load and reduces the potential savings. 

To account for the influence of weather on heating electricity use, electricity use was normalized 

to average temperature conditions (TMY3). The results of the weather normalization are shown 

in Table 5. 

 

8 Since there are only 11 months of post-period data, we assume electricity use in August 2012 is similar to July 

2012.
14 

Table 5. Weather Normalized Electricity Use for the Different Regression Models by Fourplex

Regression Model Baseload 

(kWh)

Heating 

(kWh)

Total 

(kWh)

# of 

Data 

Points

Balance 

Point 

Temperature 

(F)

RSquared

Two-Bedroom Pre 23,450 21,654 45,104 24 61 0.969

Two-Bedroom Post 22,605 11,723 34,329 11 57 0.992

Two-Bedroom

Savings 845 9,931 10,776 – – – 

Three-Bedroom Pre 31,895 21,193 53,089 24 61 0.967

Three-Bedroom Post 29,396 13,092 42,488 11 58 0.923

Three-Bedroom 

Savings 2,499 8,101 10,600 – – – 

Average of all 

Fourplex* Pre 27,504 21,433 48,937 – – – 

Average of all 

Fourplex* Post 25,865 12,380 38,245 – – – 

Average of all 

Fourplex* Savings 1,639 9,052 10,691 – – – 

Percent Savings 6% 42% 22% – – –

* Includes both three- and four-bedroom units

Average electricity savings per fourplex building is 10,691 kWh, a 22% reduction. The majority 

of savings (85%) come from the reduction in heating electricity use. The analysis estimates more 

than a 42% reduction in heating electricity use. The estimated heating savings is greater for the 

two-bedroom units, while baseload savings is less, resulting in similar total estimated savings for 

the two- and three-bedroom units. 

The greater heating savings for the two-bedroom units seems to be due to the much lower 

baseload energy use in these units compared to the three-bedroom units. This increases the 

relative heating load in these units and the potential savings. 

Appendix C contains the regression models used for the normalization analysis. 

6.2 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Results

The savings differed between modeled analysis (after true up) and the utility billing regression 

analysis, as shown in Table 6. Total predicted fourplex savings after true-up is 14,918 kWh, or 

30%. The utility regression analysis suggests a savings of 10,600 kWh, or 20%. 

While there is some disparity between measured and modeled results, these are consistent with 

similar research efforts. The total utility savings was 71% of the TREAT model prediction. 

According to Michael Blasnik, real-world savings are typically 50%–70% of predicted savings 

(Holladay, 2012). Note also that the space heat savings are 73% of predicted, and the baseload is 

66%. As baseloads represent a higher and higher percentage of overall energy use, they have a 

disproportionate impact on the modeling. 
15 

Table 6. Comparison of TREAT Predicted Savings With Utility Data Regression Analysis for Three-Bedroom Fourplex

TREAT Analysis Utility Data Regression

True-Up 

Pre-Retrofit

PostRetrofitPredicted

Savings 

% 

Savings 

PreRetrofitPostRetrofit Savings % 

Savings 

% of 

TREAT 

Predicted

Savings

Baseload 30,169 26,379 3,790 13% 31,895 29,396 2,499 8% 66%

Space Heat 20,000 8,872 11,128 56% 21,193 13,092 8,101 38% 73%

Total 50,169 35,251 14,918 30% 53,089 42,488 10,600 20% 71%

SIR Without PSE

Incentive – – 1.02 – – – – – – 

SIR With PSE Window 

Incentive – – 1.17 – – – – – – 

SIR Without Window 

and Door Costs – – 1.67 – – – – – – 
16 

7 Ventilation System Discussion

The existing kitchen hoods installed in the Cascade units recirculate air with grease filters in the 

kitchen rather than venting it to the outside and consequently present potential IAQ issues 

associated with particulates and moisture generated by cooking. The ERVs are located in close 

proximity to the kitchen; as such they can help to reduce these issues. 

As noted above in Section 4.4, post-retrofit, the ERV provided all needed whole-house 

ventilation per ASHRAE 62.2 (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning 

Engineers, 2007). KCHA staff are responsible for operation and periodic maintenance of the 

systems (filter cleaning.) As noted above, occupants do not have control over system operation. 

The old exhaust fans, located in the upstairs bathrooms, provided occupant-controlled spot 

ventilation only. 

Immediately following the installation of the ERVs, KCHA reported concern from some 

occupants that the continuous operation of the ERV would lead to higher utility bills; in fact, a 

few occupants tampered with their systems to shut them off. After education and consulting with 

KCHA staff, the occupants better understood and accepted the ERVs. Long-term feedback from 

occupants to KCHA suggested that the occupants are now satisfied with the ERVs.

Prior to retrofit, moisture issues were identified in 27 apartments, even with the operation of the 

existing exhaust whole-house ventilation system. Post-retrofit, BA researchers installed Onset 

HOBO data loggers (temperature and RH) in 12 of these units, as discussed in Section 3.2. 

Figure 9 provides a temperature stem and leaf plot for these units by month; Figure 10 provides 

the RH for these units. More detail on monitoring results can be found in Appendix A. 

Figure 9. Temperature stem and leaf plot for 12 Cascade units by month, post-retrofit

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Temperature (°F)
17 

Figure 10. RH stem and leaf plot for 12 Cascade units by month, post-retrofit

It is important to remember that the monitoring subsample was provided by KCHA as a group of 

apartments with moisture problems identified pre-retrofit. Post-retrofit, the average RH of the 

monitored apartments is always higher than 55% during the heating season, which suggests that 

humidity control may still be an issue for these apartments. Appendix A provides the individual 

apartment data, which vary considerably. 

KCHA has the ability to go back and recommission the timer control for the upstairs bath fan in 

order to increase the ventilation rate and provide additional moisture control on an as-needed 

basis. It is important to note that following the retrofit, KCHA reported moisture-related 

occupant complaints were reduced significantly. 

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RH (%) 
18 

8 Conclusions

What are the modeled energy savings using DOE low income weatherization approved 

TREAT software? 

TREAT estimated annual savings were 3,730 kWh per apartment, or $392 ($23/month) at the 

utility rate of $0.105. Whole-building (three-bedroom fourplex) site energy savings were 14,918 

kWh/year, 30% compared to pre-retrofit (Table 6). Total estimated source energy savings are 

50,198 kWh/year per building based on national source energy factors. While the two-bedroom 

units were not modeled, if one assumes similar savings for those units (an assumption borne out 

in the utility regression analysis), total modeled site savings for the 108 units in the Cascade 

community are 372,950 kWh/year; total estimated source energy savings are 1,254,976 

kWh/year. 

How did the modeled energy savings compare with measured energy savings from aggregate 

utility billing analysis?

The billing analyisis suggests total savings of 10,600 kWh/year for the three-bedroom units, and 

10,776 kWh for the two-bedroom units, for an average of 10,691 kWh/year, a 22% reduction 

(2,672 kWh per apartment average). While the average overall savings is 71% of the predicted 

TREAT savings, these results are typical of comparisons of modeled and measured energy use. 

The utility billing analysis suggests significant savings from the retrofit measures, with the 

majority of the savings (85%) coming from heating energy use.

What is the SIR of the retrofit package after considering utility window incentives and KCHA 

capital improvement funding. 

TREAT analysis indicated that the SIR varied considerably depending on whether or not utility 

incentives and capital improvement funds were leveraged. The SIR improves considerably if 

utility incentives and capital improvement funds associated with window and door replacements 

and Americorp contributions are not considered in the calculation. 

The full estimated cost of the energy saving retrofits was $26,234 per fourplex, and $655,850 for 

the entire community (does not include measures installed by the Washington Conservation 

Corps). Of that figure (entire community), PSE contributed $67,321 for windows, and KCHA 

contributed $202,678 from its Capital Improvement Fund ($34,375 for doors, $168,303 for 

windows). The incremental costs associated with the DOE low-income weatherization funds 

were assumed to be $385,850 for the whole community, or $15,434 per fourplex.

By combining capital improvement funds and utility incentives, KCHA was able to utilize 

weatherization funds to make the needed improvements, while achieving an SIR of greater than 

1. Without PSE window incentives, the SIR was 1.02. With the PSE window incentive, the SIR 

increased to 1.17. If the KCHA window costs are removed from the calculation (arguably 

justified because window retrofit was implemented due to the failure of the existing windows) 

the SIR increases to 1.67—this is in effect the SIR for all DOE/State weatherization funded 

measures.
19 

Additional benefits to the KCHA and the Cascade Apartments occupants include the use of 

capital improvement funds in order to extend the useful life of the buildings, avoid the cost of 

new construction, and reduce the impact on occupants (no occupants were displaced during the 

retrofits). Based on KCHA staff and occupant feedback before and after the retrofits, overall IAQ 

improved with the installation of the ERVs and education on their use. Each unit realized 

approximately $23 in monthly utility savings. 

Relocating the whole-house ventilation system to the main area of the home per ASHRAE 62.2-

2007 seems to have a positive benefit to the occupants. KCHA staff have noted a significant 

decrease in occupant IAQ complaints since the retrofits took place. 
20 

9 Recommendations

9.1 Ventilation

KCHA staff need to continue to engage new occupants on the use and purpose of the ERV, 

including KCHA’s responsibility to provide ongoing maintenance. 

Occupants also need to be educated in the continuous use of the ERV, as well as the spot use of 

the bathroom and kitchen fans to address moisture and other IAQ needs if they arise. 

If KCHA staff observe moisture issues during ERV maintenance visits, or if tenants experience 

moisture issues, KCHA staff can increase use of the upstairs bathroom fan, and continue to 

monitor the situation.

9.2 Policy

This project clearly illustrates the variability of SIR calculations depending on leveraged 

funding. In this project, without leveraged funding, the window retrofit would not have been 

possible using current SIR calculations. 

Determination of SIRs for individual air sealing retrofit measures was not possible because there 

is no established methodology for identifying the contribution to reduced air leakage from dense 

wall pack insulation (distinct from savings associated with reduction in conductive heat loss.) 

As demonstrated at the Newporter Apartments and other KCHA retrofit efforts, installation of 

foam sheathing during retrofit is an achievable and cost-effective measure that can further 

increase the useful life of the buildings. Future projects should consider the use of foam 

sheathing from the planning stages. 

9.3 Future Research

Assigning air leakage reductions to wall, floor, and/or ceiling air sealing measures in conjunction 

with wall, floor, and/or ceiling insulation in multifamily apartments is a key area for future work, 

in order to better assess SIR of individual measures. Future retrofit efforts should utilize results 

from the PSE study looking at air leakage control associated with dense pack wall and ceiling

insulation, so that the individual contribution for each measure can be assigned for SIR or other 

savings analyses.

BA research continues on the use of multiblower door “guarded” testing versus unguarded

testing, and its implication for SIR analysis and interapartmental IAQ issues. 
21 

References 

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers. (2007). Ventilation 

and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings. ASHRAE.

Deru, M., & Torcellini, P. (2007). Source Energy and Emission Factors for Energy Use in 

Buildings. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Energy Conservatory. (n.d.). Software. Retrieved December 14, 2012, from The Energy 

Conservatory: http://www.energyconservatory.com/software 

Faakye, O., Arena, L., & Griffiths, D. (2013). Technical Report: Predicting Envelope Leakage in 

Attached Dwellings. Washington DC: US Department of Energy. 

Gordon, A., Howard, L., Kunkle, R., Lubliner, M., Auer, D., & Clegg, Z. (2012). Newporter 

Apartments: Deep Energy Retrofit Short-Term Results. Golden: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory.

Gordon, A., Lubliner, Michael, Howard, L., & Kunkle, R. (2013). Evaluation of Savings in 

Energy Efficient Public Housing in the Pacific Northwest. Golden: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory.

Griffiths, D. (2012). Expert Meeting: Determining Air Change Rates and Envelope Leakage in 

Attached Dwellings. Washington DC: US Department of Energy. 

Holladay, M. (2012). Energy Modeling isn't very Accurate. Retrieved July 12, 2013, from Green 

Building Advisor: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/energymodeling-isn-t-very-accurate

Kruis, N., Christensen, C., & Wilson, E. (2011, August). (E. Salzberg, Interviewer) 

Lubliner, M., Howard, L., Gordon, A., Kunkle, R., Mattheis, L., Auer, D., et al. (2013). 

Newporter Apartments: Deep Energy Retrofit Short-Term Results. Golden: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

National Energy Renewable Laboratory. (2012). BEOPT. Retrieved from National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory: http://beopt.nrel.gov/ 

Performance Systems Development Consulting. (2012). TREAT. Retrieved from Performance 

Systems Development: http://www.psdconsulting.com/software/treat

Puget Sound Energy. (2013, March 20). PSE/Arrow Multifamily Air Sealing Program - Blower 

Door Diagnostics. Retrieved July 12, 2013, from Regional Technical Forum: 

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2013/03/ 

Seattle City Light. (n.d.). Residential Conservation - Compact Flourescent Bulbs. Retrieved May 

22, 2012, from Seattle City Light: 

http://www.seattle.gov/light/conserve/resident/cv5_lw2.htm

Washington State Building Code Council. (2012). 2012 IECC/Washington State Energy Code 

Appendices. WA. 

Washington State Department of Commerce. (2009). Weatherization Manual For Managing the 

Low-Income Weatherization Program. 
22 

Appendix A: Relative Humidity Monitoring Results

Figure 11 shows the RH levels for the monitored units for a typical winter month, February 

2013. The colored bars represent the percentage of hours in the month that the RH remained at or 

above the described level. The numbers in the table below the graph show the monitored high, 

low and average temperatures recorded. Researchers have similar data for the months February 

2012 to January 2013. 

Generally speaking, the monitored homes (high moisture complaints) had average temperatures 

of 65°–70°F. Two outliers, 1454 and 1467, had average temperatures below 60°F, and the 

highest RH, relative to the other homes. Unit 1467, which had the highest incidence of high RH, 

also had a bath fan that operated at a significantly lower rate (38 CFM) than the average flow 

rate of the homes in the study (62 CFM). 
23 

Figure 11. RH and temperature for monitored units in Cascade, February 2013

min (0F) 46.7 71.2 63.3 57.4 63.3 56.6 54.7 55.2 64.5 55.9

max (0F) 64.0 80.0 71.9 85.0 77.6 73.4 75.5 69.8 74.4 84.5

average (0F) 58.3 73.6 68.0 70.9 69.9 67.1 67.4 59.1 68.1 61.1

Bath Fan 

(CFM)

68 57 64 76 41 49 67 36 64 73
24 

Appendix B: Energy Audit Detail

Thermal Imaging

The Fluke thermal imaging equipment and software allow researchers to identify areas of 

thermal bridging, insulation gaps, moisture infiltration, and air infiltration. With these data in 

hand, researchers can formulate appropriate measures to address the problematic areas. Figure 12

and Figure 13 contain examples of images captured by the Ti32. 

Figure 12. Air infiltration around a door

Figure 13. Air infiltration surrounding an electrical outlet (left); thermal bridging and air bypasses 

in walls and ceiling (right)

In addition to the KCHA audits, members of the Washington Conservation Corps visited each 

unit, and recorded the following information: 

• An evaluation of lighting in place (number and type) 

• Airflow of spot ventilation

• Water temperature, and low-flow faucet aerators

• Appliance model and make 
25 

• Environmental conditions. 

Washington Conservation Corps members also installed low cost efficiency measures, such as 

compact fluorescent lamps as well as low-flow aerators and showerheads. 

Multiunit Blower Door Testing

Determining the airtightness of multifamily buildings has been problematic for more than 2 

decades. The difficulty lies in the fact that air leakage between apartments increases the apparent 

air leakage of the individual units. 

Interior walls function primarily to partition a building’s interior environment; as such they do 

not require the air impermeability characteristics of an exterior wall. Thus, when the blower door 

depressurizes a single unit, air from the adjoining unit or shared space is pulled into the tested 

unit and is essentially recorded as leakage. 

In addition, the individual apartment units share a single crawlspace, common to all four units; 

most also have a common attic.

9

 If this is not taken into account during testing, this “shared” 

leakage may be counted multiple times. 

If the air leakage of the whole building is gauged by the added results of multiple single-unit 

blower door tests, the result will be an inflated estimate of exterior leakage, and will 

overestimate the potential savings achieved through proposed retrofit measures. In addition to 

the inaccuracies resulting from air leakage between units and shared spaces, there is also a very 

small degree of uncertainty per measurement during a blower door test that must be considered. 

Per single test, this impact is marginal; however, the impact becomes larger when four separate 

tests are added together.

Figure 14. Setup for multiunit blower door testing

 

9 The buildings feature a fire wall bisecting the attic; however, some of the firewalls have large openings, mitigating 

or eliminating their effectiveness as an air barrier. 
26 

During the last 2 decades, researchers developed several methods to address this difficulty 

including the Detached-Unit Method, Pressure Equalization Method, Pressure Drop Method, and 

Single Point Method, among others. For this occasion, the Pressure Equalization Method was 

used to gauge the air leakage in the whole building as well as the individual units, both before 

and after the retrofit. The operating procedure for the Pressure Equalization Method requires 

each of the four units that comprise the building to have a blower door set up at the primary 

exterior door. The four units are then depressurized simultaneously, eliminating the air leakage 

between units and delivering accurate air leakage values for both the whole building and for 

individual units. 

Table 7 illustrates the greater precision delivered via the multiunit blower door test. Individual 

unit air leakage measurements can be found in Table 2. 

Table 7. Comparison of Whole-Building Air Testing Results and Sum of Individual Testing Results

Whole-Building Results Sum of Individual Tests

Pre Post Pre Post

CFM50 3,339 1926 CFM50 3,661 2,502

ACH50 5.85 3.38 ACH50 6.42 4.38

ACHn 0.293 0.169 ACHn 0.321 0.219

TECHLOG2

TECHLOG2 is a software program developed by The Energy Conservatory to control, monitor 

and store data from up to 16 blower door tests simultaneously (Energy Conservatory). 

TECHLOG2 is operated via a single laptop. Each blower door is directly controlled by a DG-700 

manometer, manufactured by The Energy Conservatory, and each DG-700 is linked to a single 

laptop running TECHLOG2, which records the results of the multiunit blower door test. When 

used to perform energy audits in the Cascade community, TECHLOG2 recorded results of four 

blower doors operating simultaneously, recording pressure and airflow measurements at a rate of 

once per second. The range of the testing began at an induced pressure of –60 Pascals and 

finished at –20 Pascals, diminishing in 5 Pascal intervals over the course of the test. 

Figure 15. Preparing TECHLOG2
27 

TECHLOG2 provides a comprehensive record of the test, including airflow, calculated leakage 

areas, a graph of the correlation coefficient, as well as the fan flow and pressure of a particular 

unit at any point during the test. Figure 16 through Figure 19 provide example graphs of 

TECHLOG2 results for Building V. 
28 

Figure 16. Building V, pre-retrofit testing, test pressures
29 

Figure 17. Building V, pre-retrofit testing, flow rates and building pressures
30 

Figure 18. Building V, post-retrofit testing, test pressures
31 

Figure 19. Building V, post-retrofit testing, flow rates and building pressures
32 

Appendix C: Regression Analysis

Researchers used a spreadsheet regression analysis tool developed by Michael Blasnik to 

normalize the monthly utility electricity use to typical outdoor temperature conditions. The 

spreadsheet tool uses a Bayesian approach to select the best balance point based on R-squared 

and a prior estimate of balance point. The tool uses daily average temperature data (in this case 

from Sea-Tac Airport) to estimate degree days at different base temperatures. Note that monthly 

utility data are in aggregate form for all the two-bedroom and three-bedroom units, so there are 

just two sets of utility data. 

Four regression models were developed for the weather normalization analysis: two-bedroom 

pre- and post-retrofit and three-bedroom pre- and post-retrofit. Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the 

regression data points for the two- and three-bedroom models. The regression model fits are 

good in all four cases, ranging from 0.92 to 0.99. The fit is poorest for the three-bedroom postretrofit case. More post-retrofit data would make the results more robust. Note that the degree 

day temperature base is different for the pre- and post-retrofit models. This is expected because 

the post-retrofit building is more efficient. The base temperature reflects the outdoor temperature 

below which supplemental heat is required to maintain indoor temperature. Lower temperatures 

reflect a more efficient building. While the data for the pre- and post-retrofit cases seem to 

produce similar regression lines, because the post-retrofit cases have a lower slope and use a 

lower degree day base (there are fewer degree days), estimates of heating electricity use from the 

regression analysis are lower. 

Figure 20. Regression analysis for Cascade two-bedroom units 
33 

Figure 21. Regression analysis for Cascade three-bedroom units
buildingamerica.gov

 

DOE/GO-102014-4343 ▪ February 2014

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.